The Lack of Transparency: It's Impact on History

Next: A campaign to reinterpret the Constitution to take citizenship rights away from Latino children

By Rodolfo F. Acu??a
Published on LatinoLA: July 8, 2011

The Lack of Transparency: It's Impact on History

When American historians get around at looking at the past two decades, they are going to have a field day interpreting them.

Just take the impact of WikiLeaks on our society. ?á

On July 2, 2011, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! moderated a conversation with WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange and Slovenian philosopher Slavoj ?¢i?¥ek. The discussion was fascinating; it laid out the epistemology for interpreting history and arriving at the truth.

As mentioned in previous articles, how we get knowledge determines the questions we ask. Without a proper epistemology we are unable to distinguish what is true from the false and in fact learn to avoid the truth.

Assange and ?¢i?¥ek make the point that WikLeaks does not introduce new knowledge but merely confirms what we already know. ?áThe analogy was given of a spouse who knows his wife or husband is fooling around but does not believe it until confronted with the photos.

Unfortunately history often arrives at the truth after the fact, avoiding the moral outrage of society. Cases in point are Gore v. Bush (2000) and Citizens United (2010).?áMost of us have always known that that corporations control Congress but few of us admit that these same interests control Supreme Court judges.

The sad fact is that by the ruling elite have always controlled the court and through the media obfuscates the truth. ?á

For example, the 14th Amendment was originally passed to protect African Americans from the states; however, the amendment has been historically perverted. ?áFrom the beginning, the Supreme Court ignored the rights of the former slaves and found that corporations were persons and thus could not be regulated by the states. ?áIt took years of struggle to rein in the robber barons or economic royalists as Franklin Roosevelt called them.

Progressives struggled for decades to correct the abuse only to have these protections wiped out by the current Supreme Court. ?á

Even with the glaring contradictions, there is the illusion of objectivity and we turn our heads from the threats to pervert the Constitution. ?á

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear regarding citizenship rights:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

According to historian Eric Foner, "The Fourteenth Amendment was the most important constitutional change in the nation's history since the Bill of Rights. Its heart was the first section, which declared all persons born or naturalized in the United States (except Indians) to be both national and state citizens, and which prohibited the states from abridging their 'privileges and immunities,' depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying them 'equal protection of the laws."

Nevertheless, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats want to return us to the Gilded Age (1878-1889) when lobbyists openly bought legislators on the floor of congress.

In Arizona, extremists invent the fiction that they are defenders of the Constitution. Presently they are campaign to reinterpret the Constitution to take citizenship rights away from Latino children, insidiously calling babies born to undocumented mothers within U.S. borders anchor babies. ?á

The rhetoric has worsened during the budget crisis with President Barack Obama and his gaggle of congressional Democrats dealing away the safety net won by previous generations. ?áThey are immobilized, refusing to fight back!

At a Politico Playbook breakfast on May 25, 2011, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner raised the implications of a government default of the debt ceiling. ?áAs the basis of a solution, Geithner cited the 14th Amendment that says that the "validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

The wording is clear and not an invention such as the fiction that a corporation is a person.

Nevertheless, Democrats continue negotiating with "bought" men such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). ?áCornyn, a self-proclaimed champion of constitutionality, squealed at Geithner's suggestion while Sessions wept that Democrats would dare say that millionaires should share pain, calling such a suggestion "rather pathetic."

Instead of raising the authority of the 14th Amendment and calling the Republicans' bluff and showing principle, the Democrats are rolling over once more. ?áYou can bet if the GOP had a similar weapon they would use it. ?áRepublicans as a group have no moral compunctions about violating the constitution. They lie and they lie.

They use hate to promote their agenda to protect the Kochs and their ilk. ?áBlue Dog Democrats are no better.

Email the author

   print this


Arts & Entertainment Comunidad Forum People El Editor's Blog

Careers Expresate Hollywood Tecnología RSS Feeds